Skip to main content

Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Civil Service Injury Benefit Scheme (CAS-51729-B5T5)

Complainant: Mr O
Complaint Topic: Injury benefit
Ref: CAS-51729-B5T5
Outcome: Partly upheld
Appeal outcome: None
Respondent: Cabinet Office
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
Type: Pension complaint or dispute
Appeal: No

Ombudsman’s Determination


Mr O’s complaint is partly upheld. To put matters right, for the part that is upheld, HMPPS shall pay Mr O the award which was directed by Cabinet Office in November 2016. It shall also pay him pay him £1,000 for the serious distress and inconvenience caused by the misinformation given and for the oversight identified. MyCSP shall pay Mr O £500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by no satisfactory reason being given for the initial PIB assessment only considering Mr O’s PTSD.

Complaint summary

Mr O’s complaint concerns MyCSP’s handling of his respective Ill Health Early Retirement (IHER) and Permanent Injury Benefit (PIB) claims. 

Specifically Mr O says:-
• He was initially assessed under the wrong pension scheme for IHER, which caused a delay in benefits being paid to him.

• His initial PIB application did not take into account his back injury.

• It was subsequently confirmed to him that he needed a Sick Leave Excusal (SLE) to be able to apply for PIB (in relation to his back injury), so he applied for this through his employer. 

• After over a year of chasing his former employer/the governor at his former workplace, he was eventually able to obtain a SLE. However, he was then out of time to appeal his PIB decision. 

• MyCSP later clarified that he did not need a SLE to apply for PIB in relation to his back injury. He had therefore been given incorrect advice. Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) had wrongly been deducted from his PIB award. 

• He had been advised by MyCSP to relinquish ESA and IIDB, but he was now worse off. These benefits being taken away from him meant that he had not been able to access healthcare in Spain, where he now resides. 

View determination


Related decisions